Hypotherical situation, just curious as to what people think. This doesn't pertain directly to me, sort of (I only have 2 siblings anyways...).
So, lets say there was a family with 4 siblings, whose last remaining elderly parent unfortunatly just passed away recently. There is a farm, with 100 or so acres, vaious buildings, etc, which was origionally at least to be divided amongst the 4 siblings in 4 equil shares, adjusted for structures, usable land, etc. One of the siblings, sibling A, is an accountant by trade and as such was named executer of the trust, with power of attourney.
Sibling B at one point over something completely stupid Sued sibling A while both parents were alive, and incurred wrath. The trust was changed at that point so that anyone disputing the trust is summarily issued $1 and forfeits all other possible property.
Sometime after that occured, Sibling C's previously held in check mental illness took a rapid and irrevocable turn for the worse, to the point where mental institutions and whatnot were in play, and there was a very real danger of the State siezing all assets for medical costs. So Person C's share was transferred to person A, along with all of their assets. (thats another long hypothetical story for another time)
Return to the present. Last remaining parent was on anti-demntia medicine, had been for months, had failing sight, and was in overall poor health as of August 6 2010. They saddly passed away August 19th and will be missed.
On August 6th however, the trust was altered stating that person A and Person C get 22 acres out of the 100 acre farm in addition to their 25% share. It was signed and witnessed, and the signature is not forged. The $1 clause was reinforced in that revision as well and specifically strengthened about that particular section.
So basically, Person B, who is hypothetically a douchebag, and person D, who his hypothetically a very close relitive of mine, both get screwed out of a large chunk of their inheratance, and Person A ends up with the bulk of everything.
Last remaining paretn of those persons was hypothetically visited by me sometime in between the 6th and the 19th, and she was in very rough, not lucid state most of the time, with periods of clarity. She couldn't see much any more even with reading glasses, and was pretty much out of it. She did ask how Person D was doing, seemed genually interested and not particularily hostile. She was definitly the type of person where you knew if she was mad at you, so my hypothesis is that person A snuck a piece of paper in, had her sign sight unseen, and effectivly stole half a farm.
Person D did not see that coming at all, and prior to that point had a pretty good relation to person A.
So I don't know. With the "dispute the trust and lose everything" clause, a witnessed document, and power of attourney at signing anyways, it seems that person A is basically in an untouchable position, and the economics of trying to go the legal route seem like they would cost more than any potential value that might be gained. I think someone could make a good case that Grandma was not of sound mind and body at the time that amendment was pushed through, but would challenging that be challenging the trust document itself?
I dunno. I'm just hypothetically livid over this, that the jackass would do something like that to person D. It's not about the money in the end, it's a betrayal is what it is.
Any ideas?